CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. VNO 504551
Regular
Mar 12, 2008

Armando Gutierrez vs. Anthony Bechtol dba Custom, Etc., illegally uninsured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded an Order Approving Compromise and Release because the defendant, an illegally uninsured employer, claimed he was not properly served and thus denied participation in the proceedings. Applicant's attorney failed to provide proof of service as ordered by the Board, leading to the conclusion that the defendant's petition for reconsideration was timely. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the defendant's objections, including whether the applicant was an employee or independent contractor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundProof of ServiceIndependent ContractorNotice of IntentionPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessRescinded Order
References
1
Case No. ADJ2114868 (LAO 0878203) ADJ3881314 (LAO 0878204) ADJ4493553 (LAO 0861544)
Regular
Aug 23, 2010

ELLA MEZHIBURSKAYA vs. SUNNY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., also known as UNIVERSAL MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., illegally uninsured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration and granted the applicant's petition. The employer was found to have illegally discriminated against the applicant by filing a retaliatory civil complaint, violating Labor Code section 132a(1). The applicant was denied compensation for her claimed industrial injuries but was awarded costs and attorney's fees related to the discrimination claim. The Board amended the findings to specifically cite subdivision (1) of section 132a, removing any reference to subdivision (3).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeCumulative TraumaSpecific Industrial InjuryLabor Code Section 132aDiscrimination
References
0
Case No. ADJ6540543
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

Christopher Toms vs. Marvin Lee Weatherbee dba BEELINE TRANSPORTATION, illegally uninsured, KIEWIT PACIFIC COMPANY, permissibly self-insured

This case involves Christopher Toms, an applicant injured while employed as a truck driver by Beeline Transportation, an illegally uninsured entity. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a finding that Kiewit Pacific Company, permissibly self-insured, was a dual employer. The Board rescinded the prior award, finding that Kiewit was a contracting party who engaged Beeline as an independent contractor. No statutory basis existed to deem Toms an employee of Kiewit, therefore Kiewit is not liable for workers' compensation benefits.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardChristopher TomsMarvin Lee WeatherbeeBeeline TransportationKiewit Pacific Companyillegally uninsuredpermissibly self-insureddual employersultimate hirerjoint and severally liable
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23413
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2023

Gur Assoc. LLC v. Convenience on Eight Corp.

The New York Civil Court denied a motion by Convenience on Eight Corporation (tenant) to dismiss a commercial holdover proceeding initiated by Gur Associates LLC (landlord). The landlord sought eviction due to the premises' alleged illegal use for unlicensed cannabis sales by an undertenant, Bing Bong Candy Shop Inc. The tenant's motion, which also sought to vacate a default, cited improper service, defective notices, insufficient allegations of illegal use, and waiver by rent acceptance. The court found that the landlord adequately pleaded illegal use under RPAPL 715-a (4), rejecting the tenant's arguments regarding service, notice requirements, and the claim that rent acceptance constituted a waiver, citing strong public policy against illegal use.

Commercial LeaseHoldover ProceedingIllegal UseCannabis SalesUnlicensed BusinessEvictionPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessMotion to DismissDefault Judgment
References
33
Case No. ADJ7611909 ADJ8870925
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

ANTONIA RIVAS vs. EL PRADO RESTAURANT, THE COHEN RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board reversed the prior decision, allowing lien claimant Preferred Scan's exhibits into evidence. Applying the en banc decision in *Cornejo*, the Board found that Preferred Scan made an unrebutted prima facie showing of exemption from Business and Professions Code registration requirements. This exemption applies because Preferred Scan acted as an agent or independent contractor for applicant's attorney, a member of the State Bar. The case is returned for a new decision on the lien claim.

Preferred ScanRivas v. El Prado RestaurantADJ7611909ADJ8870925WCABReconsiderationBusiness and Professions Code 22450Business and Professions Code 22451(b)Cornejo v. Younique CaféInc.
References
1
Case No. ADJ7626540, ADJ7626544
Regular
Oct 17, 2013

EFRAIN CERVANTES vs. EXCEL CONSTRUCTION, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's dismissal of Preferred Scan's lien. Although Preferred Scan paid its lien activation fee on the morning of the lien conference, the WCJ dismissed the lien due to no proof of payment being available at the conference. The Board found the payment timely and the EAMS system's delayed reflection of payment not Preferred Scan's fault. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including potential dismissal notice or sanctions for the failure to appear.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien Activation FeePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienDue ProcessLabor Code Section 4903.06Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Lien ConferenceSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Riccardi v. ARA Leisure Services

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from March 5, 1990, which denied his claim for double workers’ compensation benefits, ruling he was not illegally employed. The claimant argued he was entitled to double benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14-a due to illegal employment. However, a certificate of employment was produced, showing his employment was authorized. The burden was then on the claimant to prove violations of Labor Law §§ 132 and 135. The claimant failed to present evidence that he did not give working papers to the employer or that the employer did not request or keep them on file. Consequently, the claimant did not meet his burden of proof, and the Workers’ Compensation Board's finding that no illegal employment existed was upheld. The court affirmed the decision, finding no reason to remit the matter for further development of the record.

Illegal EmploymentDouble Workers' Compensation BenefitsCertificate of EmploymentBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionLabor Law ComplianceAffirmed Decision
References
2
Case No. 13483/93, 5550/94
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Ryan

This case addresses whether a court has the inherent power to vacate an illegal sentence more than one year after its imposition, particularly when the sentence was procured through the defendant's fraud and misrepresentation of his identity and criminal history. The defendant, initially identified as Robert Ryan, pleaded guilty to felonies in 1994 and was sentenced as a first-time offender. It was subsequently discovered in 1995 that he was a persistent violent felony offender under the name Keith Kittredge with numerous prior convictions. The court examined precedents regarding judicial power to correct errors after statutory time limits. Ultimately, the court concluded that it possesses the inherent authority to vacate the illegally imposed sentences due to the defendant's active fraud and deceit, distinguishing this situation from cases involving passive acceptance of illegal plea bargains. The matter was set for a hearing to determine new sentencing options or allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty pleas.

fraudmisrepresentationillegal sentenceinherent powervacate judgmentpersistent violent felony offenderpredicate felonyCPL 440.40double jeopardyplea bargain
References
11
Case No. ADJ6949691
Regular
Sep 05, 2013

GUADALUPE MONTES, GUADALUPE MONTES-GARCIA vs. CITIZEN DEVELOPMENT CORP.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by True Scan Legal Copy Service, a lien claimant. The petition was denied because it was not verified under oath as required by Labor Code section 5902. Furthermore, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found that True Scan had sufficient notice of the lien conference and failed to pay its lien activation fee. Therefore, the lien was properly dismissed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5902Lien ClaimantLien ConferenceActivation FeeEAMS SystemNotice of HearingDismissalAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ2183699 (VNO 0558048)
Regular
Oct 23, 2019

ALICIA RAMOS vs. DAVID HAKIM, The Handal Family Trust

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior determination that David Hakim was an illegally uninsured employer. Hakim appealed, arguing the applicant was an independent contractor, not an employee, thus he was not required to carry workers' compensation insurance. The Board found that Hakim's contention regarding the employment status sufficiently rebutted the prima facie case required for an illegally uninsured employer finding. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine employment status and other related issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPrima Facie DeterminationIllegally Uninsured EmployerPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent ContractorLabor Code Section 3715Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundArising Out Of and Occurring In The Course Of EmploymentAOE/COEDirector of Industrial Relations
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 295 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational